Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.
Therefore, “wherein the saw includes a power cord, the power cord configured to connect to a power source,” of Claim 11, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein the track is selectively coupled to the stand, and wherein the track is configured to be moved along the plurality of cross-members when the arm is in the opened state,” of Claim 15, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “a track selectively coupled to the stand, the track configured to be moved relative to the stand in an adjustment direction along a width dimension of the stand when the arm is in the opened state,” of Claim 16, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “wherein the track is configured to be selectively locked in a plurality of different positions along the adjustment direction,” of Claim 17, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Therefore, “the track is configured to be moved relative to the stand in the adjustment direction along the width dimension when the first and second arms are in the opened state,” of Claim 18, must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 4, 15, and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In re Claim 4, “wherein the first and second arms are configured to be locked in the collapsed state and the opened state,” is indefinite. It is unclear if Applicant is claiming the structure of a “lock” or that the arms are fixed in position. The claims were interpreted that the arms were fixed in a position. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 15, “wherein the track is selectively coupled to the stand, and wherein the track is configured to be moved along the plurality of cross-members when the arm is in the opened state,” is indefinite. Structure that allows this method occur, moving the track along the plurality of cross-members, is not illustrated or discussed. Is applicant claiming to flat surfaces? Or is there other structure, such that allows this to occur? It is unclear what structure is being claimed. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction.
In re Claim 16, “a track selectively coupled to the stand, the track configured to be moved relative to the stand in an adjustment direction along a width dimension of the stand when the arm is in the opened state,” is indefinite. Structure that allows this method occur, moving the track along the plurality of cross-members, is not illustrated or discussed. Is applicant claiming to flat surfaces? Or is there other structure, such that allows this to occur? It is unclear what structure is being claimed. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction.
In re Claim 17, “wherein the track is configured to be selectively locked in a plurality of different positions along the adjustment direction,” is indefinite. Structure that allows this method occur, locking the track along the plurality of cross-members, is not illustrated. Does a fastener securing to parts tighter read on this claim? Or, is there other structure that allows this to occur? It is unclear what structure is being claimed. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
In re Claim 18, “the track is configured to be moved relative to the stand in the adjustment direction along the width dimension when the first and second arms are in the opened state,” is indefinite. Structure that allows this method occur, l moved relative to the stand, is not illustrated. Does two flat surfaces read on the claim or is applicant claiming a particular structure? It is unclear what structure is being claimed. The claims were examined as best understood. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,833,320 to Bennett in view of US 2010/0276910 to Wise.
In re Claim 1, Bennett teaches a panel saw (see Figs. 1-2) assembly comprising:
a stand (see the assembly in Figs. 1-2,) including a post (see Figs. 1-2, #10),
a first arm coupled to a first side of the post (see Fig. 2, the “right hand” portion of #14), and
a second arm coupled to a second side of the post opposite the first side (see Fig. 2, the “left hand” portion of #14);
a leg coupled to at least one of the first arm, the second arm, and the post for supporting the stand in an inclined orientation relative to a surrounding support surface (see Fig. 1, #17, which is connected to the assembly that includes the first and second arms and the post for supporting the assembly in an inclined orientation); a track coupled to the stand (see Figs. 1-2, track members #20); and
a saw movable along the track (see Figs. 1-2, saw #50).
Bennett does not teach wherein the first and second arms are adjustable relative to the post between a collapsed state and an opened state.
However, Wise teaches that it is known in the art of structures for holding work pieces for cutting saws, to provide hinges (see Wise, Figs. 1-4, showing the table assembly #30 pivotally attached to the main body of the device at #58/62/54) on either side of the saw structure in order to collapse the side structures into a self-storage arrangement to minimize storage spaced needed by the assembly (see Wise, Para. 0017). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide pivoting connections between #13/#14 and track #20, as well as at the center of strips #11, of Bennett, to allow the workpiece holder structures to collapse. Doing so provides a self-storage arrangement to minimize storage spaced needed by the assembly (see Wise, Para. 0017).
In re Claim 2, modified Bennett, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the stand defines a collapsed width when the first and second arms are in the collapsed state, the stand defines an opened width when the first and second arms are in the opened state, and the opened width is greater than the collapsed width (when the stand is in the collapsed state the width of the stand is narrower than in the “use” or “open” state – see e.g., Bennett, Fig. 2 in view of Weise Figs. 1 and 2).
In re Claim 3, modified Bennett, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein a ruler (see Bennett, Fig. 2 “scale #53” is a ruler) is coupled to the stand, the ruler having a first ruler portion the first ruler portion is coupled to the first arm (in Bennett, the scale #53 is on the first arm) and is adjustable between the collapsed state and the opened state with the first arm (under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the ruler, which is on #14 moves with #14).
Bennett only teaches the ruler on one side of #14. As such, Bennett does not teach a second ruler portion, the second ruler portion is coupled to the second arm and is adjustable between the collapsed state and the opened state with the second arm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to extend the ruler across the entire width of #14, in Bennett. Doing so would allow the user to double the measurement of the ruler, and thus measure twice the length of work piece.
It has been held that the mere duplication of the essential working parts for a multiplied effect is obvious unless there is a synergistic effect. See St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis CO., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir. 1977). Here, duplication of the ruler to the “other” side of #14 in Bennett would not create a synergistic effect, but would allow the user to measure a larger workpiece. As such, it would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to extend the ruler along the entirety of #14.
Such a combination would provide for a second ruler portion, the second ruler portion is coupled to the second arm and is adjustable between the collapsed state and the opened state with the second arm.
In re Claim 4, modified Bennett, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the first and second arms are configured to be locked in the collapsed state and the opened state (see Wise, Fig. 2, in view of Bennett, Fig. 1, the examiner notes that “locked” was interpreted as fixed in place, the examiner notes that the structure of a lock is not required by the claim)
In re Claim 5, modified Bennett, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the first and second arms are oriented substantially parallel with the post when the first and second arms are in the collapsed state (when the stand is in the collapsed state the structures extending from the track in Bennett, are pivoted to be substantially parallel to the post – see e.g., Bennett, Fig. 2 in view of Weise Figs. 1 and 2).
In re Claim 6, modified Bennett, in re Claim 1, teaches wherein the post defines a post axis (see Bennett, Fig. 1, the longitudinal axis of #10), the track defines a cutting axis (see Bennett, Fig. 1, the longitudinal axis of #20), and the post axis is parallel with the cutting axis (see Bennett, Fig. 1, the longitudinal axis of #10 and #20 are parallel).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,833,320 to Bennett in view of US 2010/0276910 to Wise, and further in view of US 3,008,498 to Olson.
In re Claim 7, modified Bennett, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the leg is pivotably coupled to at least one of the first arm, the second arm, or the post between a stored position and a deployed position, the leg is collapsed against the at least one of the first arm, the second arm, or the post in the stored position, and the leg is pivoted away from the at least one of the first arm, the second arm, or the post in the deployed position.
However, Olson teaches that it is known in the art of panel saw to privotally mount the leg to the structure of the device (see Olson, Figs. 1-2, #66 mounted by pivot connection #67 to #14). In the same field of invention, panel saw structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to pivotally connect the leg of Bennet to the post. Doing so allows the user to tilt the frame to acquire a convenient working angle (see Olson, Col 3, ll. 64-74).
Such a combination would provide for the leg is collapsed against the at least one of the first arm, the second arm, or the post in the stored position, and the leg is pivoted away from the at least one of the first arm, the second arm, or the post in the deployed position.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,833,320 to Bennett in view of US 2010/0276910 to Wise, and further in view of US 2018/0345391 to Ridgway.
In re Claim 8, modified Bennett, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein a plurality of wheels are coupled to the first and second arms, the plurality of wheels configured to move the panel saw assembly along a surface.
However, Ridgway teaches that it is known in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to add wheels to the first and second arms (see Ridgway, Fig. 1, #110a-d; Para. 0017/0045). Doing so allows makes the saw assembly substantially mobile (see Ridgway, Para. 0045).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,833,320 to Bennett in view of US 2010/0276910 to Wise, and further in view of US 2018/0345391 to Ridgway, and US 3,008,498 to Olson.
In re Claim 9, modified Bennett, in re Claim 8 does not teach wherein the leg is pivotably coupled to at least one of the first arm, the second arm, or the post between a stored position and a deployed position, and wherein the plurality of wheels are configured to move the panel saw assembly along a surface when the leg is in the stored position.
However, Olson teaches that it is known in the art of panel saw to privotally mount the leg to the structure of the device (see Olson, Figs. 1-2, #66 mounted by pivot connection #67 to #14). In the same field of invention, panel saw structures, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to pivotally connect the leg of Bennet to the post. Doing so allows the user to tilt the frame to acquire a convenient working angle (see Olson, Col 3, ll. 64-74).
Such a combination would provide for wherein the plurality of wheels are configured to move the panel saw assembly along a surface when the leg is in the stored position.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,833,320 to Bennett in view of US 2010/0276910 to Wise, and further in view of US 4,847,513 to Katz.
In re Claim 10, modified Bennett, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the saw includes a rechargeable battery pack to power the saw.
However, Katz teaches that is known in the art of circular saw to provide a circular saw with a rechargeable battery pack to power the saw (see Katz, Fig. 1, #32/20).
In the same field of invention, circular saw, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize the circular saw of Katz in the device of modified Bennett. Doing so is the substation of one known circular saw for another circular saw to achieve the result of cutting the workpiece (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so allows the tool to be used without accessibility to continuous AC power (see Katz, Col. 1, ll. 27-44).
In re Claim 11, modified Bennett, in re Claim 1, does not teach wherein the saw includes a power cord, the power cord configured to connect to a power source.
However, Katz teaches a saw includes a power cord, the power cord configured to connect to a power source (see Katz, Figs.1-2, #20/80/78).
In the same field of invention, circular saw, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to utilize the circular saw of Katz in the device of modified Bennett. Doing so is the substation of one known circular saw for another circular saw to achieve the result of cutting the workpiece (see MPEP 2143, I, B). Doing so allows the tool to be used without accessibility to continuous AC power (see Katz, Col. 1, ll. 27-44) as well as provides a cord when the user has continuous AC power thus saving the battery (see Katz, Col.1 , ll. 44-62).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,833,320 to Bennett in view of US 2,785,708 to Krogen and US 2010/0276910 to Wise.
In re Claim 12, Bennett teaches a panel saw assembly (see Figs. 1-2) comprising:
a stand including a post (see Bennett, Fig. 1-2, #10), and
an arm (see Bennett, Fig. 1-2, #14) including a plurality of cross-members (see Bennett, Fig. 1-2, #11) coupled to a side of the post and
a track coupled to the stand (see Figs. 1-2, #20); and a saw movable along the track (see Figs. 1-2, #50).
Bennett does not teach the arm and the cross-members pivotably coupled, and a plurality of links pivotably coupled to the plurality of cross-members, the arm adjustable relative to the post between a collapsed state and an opened state, each of the plurality of cross-members oriented substantially parallel to the post when the arm is in the collapsed state, and each of the plurality of cross-members oriented substantially perpendicular to the post when the arm is in the opened state.
However, Krogen teaches that it is known in the art of panel saws with cross-members (see Krogen, Fig. 1, #6) and links (see Krogen, Fig. 1, #7). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to provide a rectangular shape workpiece support, with cross-members and links, as taught by Krogen. Doing so provides a different shape work support (rectangular shape) that supports a wider and taller workpiece, thus making the device more useful.
Additionally, Wise teaches that it is known in the art of structures for holding work pieces for cutting saws, to provide hinges (see Wise, Figs. 1-4, showing the table assembly #30 pivotally attached to the main body of the device at #58/62/54) on either side of the saw structure in order to collapse the side structures into a self-storage arrangement to minimize storage spaced needed by the assembly (see Wise, Para. 0017). In the same field of invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide pivoting connections between the frame structure supports of modified Bennet, to allow the workpiece holder structures to collapse. Doing so provides a self-storage arrangement to minimize storage spaced needed by the assembly (see Wise, Para. 0017).
In re Claim 13, modified Bennett, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the arm is a first arm (see Bennett, Fig. 2, one side of #14), the side of the post is a first side of the post (see Bennett, Fig. 2, one side of the post), the plurality of cross-members is a plurality of first cross-members (see Krogen, Fig. 1, cross-members #6) and the plurality of links is a plurality of first links (see Krogen, Fig.1, links #7) and
the panel saw assembly further comprises a second arm (see Bennett, Fig. 2, the other side of #14) including a plurality of second cross-members pivotably coupled a second side of the post opposite the first side and a plurality of second links pivotably coupled to the plurality of second cross-members (see Krogen, Fig. 1, cross-members #6 and links #7, in view of Wise, Figs. 1-4), the second arm adjustable relative to the post between a collapsed state and an opened state (see e.g., Wise, Figs. 1-2), each of the plurality of second cross-members oriented substantially parallel to the post when the second arm is in the collapsed state, and each of the plurality of second cross-members oriented substantially perpendicular to the post when the second arm is in the opened state (see Wise, Figs. 1-2, Krogen, Fig. 1, #6/7, and Bennett, Fig. 2).
In re Claim 14, modified Bennett, in re Claim 12, teaches wherein the plurality of links are oriented substantially parallel to the post when the arm is in the collapsed state and the opened state (see e.g. Krogen, Fig. 1, #6/7, in view of Wise, Figs. 1-2, and Bennett Fig. 2, the links would be pivoted in an orientation that is substantially parallel to the post in the collapsed state).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,833,320 to Bennett in view of US 2,785,708 to Krogen and US 2010/0276910 to Wise and US 3,866,496 to Payne.
In re Claim 15, modified Bennett, in re Claim 12, does not teach wherein the track is selectively coupled to the stand, and wherein the track is configured to be moved along the plurality of cross-members when the arm is in the opened state.
Payne teaches that it is known in the art of panel board / sheet board cutting assemblies to provide a track selectively coupled to the stand (see Payne, Fig. 2a-2c, #14), the track configured to be moved relative to the stand in an adjustment direction along a width dimension of the stand (see Payne, Figs. 2a-2c, showing the track movable along the width of the assembly); the cutting path oriented substantially perpendicular to the adjustment direction (see e.g., Payne Fig. 2b, illustrating locations of the track perpendicular to the arrows).
In the same field of invention, panel board /sheet board cutting assemblies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the adjustable track structure of Payne to the device of modified Bennett. Doing so provides a sheet board cutting machine in which horizontal cuts through the board may be made without advancing the board itself (see Payne, Col. 1, ll. 61-66).
Claims 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2,833,320 to Bennett in view of US 2010/0276910 to Wise and US 3,866,496 to Payne.
In re Claim 16, Bennett teaches a panel saw assembly (see Fig. 1-2) comprising:
a stand (see Fig. 1-2) including a post (see Fig. 1, #10) and an arm coupled to a side of the post (see Fig. 2, one side of #14),
a leg coupled to at least one of the post and the arm (see Fig. 1, #16);
a track (see Figs. 1-2, #20); and
a saw coupled to the track and movable along a cutting path (see Figs.1-2, #50).
Bennett does not teach:
the arm adjustable relative to the post between a collapsed state and an opened state;
a track selectively coupled to the stand, the track configured to be moved relative to the stand in an adjustment direction along a width dimension of the stand when the arm is in the opened state
the cutting path oriented substantially perpendicular to the adjustment direction.
However, Wise teaches that it is known in the art of structures for holding work pieces for cutting saws, to provide hinges (see Wise, Figs. 1-4, showing the table assembly #30 pivotally attached to the main body of the device at #58/62/54) on either side of the saw structure in order to collapse the side structures into a self-storage arrangement to minimize storage spaced needed by the assembly (see Wise, Para. 0017). In the same field of invention, structures for holding work pieces for cutting saws, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date to provide pivoting connections between #13/#14 and track #20, as well as at the center of strips #11, of Bennett, to allow the workpiece holder structures to collapse. Doing so provides a self-storage arrangement to minimize storage spaced needed by the assembly (see Wise, Para. 0017).
Additionally, Payne teaches that it is known in the art of panel board / sheet board cutting assemblies to provide a track selectively coupled to the stand (see Payne, Fig. 2a-2c, #14), the track configured to be moved relative to the stand in an adjustment direction along a width dimension of the stand (see Payne, Figs. 2a-2c, showing the track movable along the width of the assembly); the cutting path oriented substantially perpendicular to the adjustment direction (see e.g., Payne Fig. 2b, illustrating locations of the track perpendicular to the arrows).
In the same field of invention, panel board /sheet board cutting assemblies, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the earliest effective filing date, to add the adjustable track structure of Payne to the device of modified Bennett. Doing so provides a sheet board cutting machine in which horizontal cuts through the board may be made without advancing the board itself (see Payne, Col. 1, ll. 61-66).
In re Claim 17, modified Bennett, in re Claim 16, teaches wherein the track is configured to be selectively locked in a plurality of different positions along the adjustment direction (see Payne, Figs. 2A-C).
In re Claim 18, modified Bennett, in re Claim 16, teaches wherein the arm is a first arm coupled to a first side of the post (see Bennett, Fig. 2, one side of #14 is the first arm and the other side of #14 is the second arm),the stand further includes a second arm coupled to a second side of the post opposite the first side (see Bennett, Fig. 2, one side of #14 is the first arm and the other side of #14 is the second arm), the second arm is adjustable relative to the post between a collapsed state and an opened state (see Bennett Figs. 1-2 in view of Wise, Figs. 1-4), and the track is configured to be moved relative to the stand in the adjustment direction along the width dimension when the first and second arms are in the opened state (see Payne, Figs. 2A-C).
In re Claim 19, modified Bennett, in re Claim 16, teaches wherein the stand defines a collapsed width when the arm is in the collapsed state (see Bennett, Fig. 2 in view of Wise, Fig. 2), the stand defines an opened width when the arm is in the opened state, and the opened width is greater than the collapsed width (see Bennet Fig. 2, the open state, and Bennet Fig. 2 in view of Wise, Fig. 2, the closed state – the width of the assembly is wider in the open state).
In re Claim 20, modified Bennett, in re Claim 16, teaches wherein the arm is oriented substantially parallel with the post when the arm is in the collapsed state (when the stand is in the collapsed state the structures extending from the track in Bennett, are pivoted to be substantially parallel to the post – see e.g., Bennett, Fig. 2 in view of Weise Figs. 1 and 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN RILEY whose telephone number is (571)270-7786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Boyer Ashley can be reached at 571-272-4502. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN G RILEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3724